1704212 (Refugee)

1704212 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 2011 (23 April 2021)
DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1704212
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   India
MEMBER:David McCulloch
DATE:23 April 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 23 April 2021 at 7:32am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – involvement in student politics – persecution by Shiromani Akali Dal Badal supporters – caused problems for family’s business – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 22 February 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of India, applied for the visa on 11 January 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 16 April 2021 at 9:30am. The Tribunal was assisted with the use of an interpreter in the Punjabi language. The applicant was represented by his registered migration agent, who attended the hearing.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The Tribunal has before it the DFAT Country Information Report – India, 17 October 2018, a copy of which was provided to the applicant at hearing.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is the credibility of the applicant and whether, on accepted claims, the criteria for protection are fulfilled. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant was granted a TU 572 student visa on 15 August 2008 and arrived in Australia [in] August 2008. In the interview with the delegate the applicant indicated that this visa was cancelled in 2012. Government records indicate that the applicant applied for another TU 572 visa on 2 May 2013. This was refused on 20 December 2013. A review by the Tribunal was sought on 3 January 2014 which affirmed the delegate’s decision on 23 October 2014. The application for a protection visa was made on 11 January 2016.
The applicant departed Australia [in] February 2011 and returned [in] April 2011. The applicant departed Australia again [in] June 2011 and returned [in] July 2011. The applicant states that he returned to India on the previous occasions for a medical problem.
The following information is apparent from the application for protection forms. The applicant was born on [date] in Patiala, Punjab, India. The applicant is a Sikh of Sikh ethnicity, who speaks, reads, and writes Punjabi and English. The applicant states that he separated [in] May 2012. The applicant’s mother, sister, son and daughter reside in India, and the applicant is in contact with them by phone once a week. The applicant lists no addresses in India. The applicant attended primary and secondary school, graduating from [a] School in Punjab (but does not list any dates). The applicant completed a [course] at [a] College, Brisbane from October 2010 until May 2011. The applicant then studied a [qualification] in [course] at [a second] College, Brisbane from August 2008 before graduating in August 2010.
The applicant provided a written statement setting out his claims for protection as follows (not corrected for spelling or grammar):
I, [the applicant] (DOB: [date], Male, Passport No: [deleted]) currently residing at [address] am making this statement to claim myself as a refugee.
I born in Patiala, Punjab, India and started my primary education in [a] Public School in Patiala, Punjab. After successfully completion of year [grade] I did complete my Higher Secondary from Punjab School Education Board of the same region and successfully completed the Secondary School Certificate Examination in [year]. After that I came to Australia. Ours is a well reputed family in my locality and my father was a businessman serving the community as a finance manager. My father wanted to me to become an educated person. For this reason he wanted me to have a higher study in a reputed country where I can get world class education.
As mentioned before, my family is a middle class family of Punjab, India doing enough for its bread and butter. What we care is our reputation and honour in the society. We never had been in any conflict with any local or outsider. But, when I was a student of my college in my HSC time, I was involved in some conflict with the political party who used run their activities through their student wing. Although I was not involved in the active politics, my friends were supporters of the student wing of the 'Congress' From the oppositions points of view I was one of them. 'Congress' was in power and was controlling every aspect of economic and social activities all around India and in my locality. The hooligans of 'Shiromani Akali Dal Badal', which is the opposite force of the 'Congress' started to disturb me and even my family. This was the other reason why my father wanted me to leave India. This issue became very vital for me because the whole life I didn't miss any of my classes and was very particular for my study. Suddenly my friends came to know the matter and without my consent they started to arguing and fighting with other party (may be because of their own interest).
When I flew from India and arrived in Australia, I started to pay my attention to my study. In the meantime, there was a shift in the power. Then one day I received the information that they are disturbing my entire family and treating them very badly in my locality which I was not informed. Suddenly I found myself in a very awkward position with my career and future. This incident affected my study here severely and I finally could not continue. My family had been harassed several times. Police used to call my mother several time in local police station for meeting and advised my mother to ask me not to come back to India. They also told her otherwise my whole family would be the sufferer. I tried to make my mother understand, but it was first of this kind of incident in my whole family and my mother and my only sister were scared for me. They were scared to lose their reputation in the society and also they didn't want me to be involved in this kind of situation. They were just scared about my life. Again, here I was so scared about my sister's well-being.
I asked them to went to the police and request them to give protection, but nothing happened. In India police and other government law enforcing agencies only work for the political party which is on the power. The denied to take the case and rather asked me to leave the locality. Furthermore, last time when [date] of May 2011, I went back to India to judge the situation, I found it very hard for me be safe when they are continuously looking there for me to harass and persecution.
I just wanted to make my entire family is safe and to avoid the situation which might happen for me. I wanted to be a successful entrepreneur. I believe I can do that well than anyone. Now, if I went to India, the same story will be started to begun. Now, they are controlling the business over there and again the same party is in the power. They are thinking me as their competitor and as I have a long history of staying overseas, they believe I can defeat them easily in business. They just do not want me to be there and do business.
I have a serious threat in my own country and a very reasonable ground to believe that I have a fear for persecution. I want to be in Australia on onshore protection as a refugee. Please consider my case and grant me the status as a refugee so that I do not need to go back to my county India and get killed.
On 14 April 2021, two days before the Tribunal hearing, the applicant’s migration agent provided a summary of the following revised claims of the applicant:
·The applicant[is] an Indian National born on [date].
·He is persecuted by the member of Shiromani Akali Dal party, [Mr A] and “friends of [Mr B]” being members of Student Organisation of India.
·The applicant was believed to be involved in a group fight leading to the death of “[Mr B]” in 2003.
·The applicant’s friend [Mr C] were killed by “friends of [Mr B]” who has strong association with the Shiromani Akali Dal party and Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee in 2004
·The applicant’s friend [Mr D] were killed by the same group in 2007.
·[Mr A] was a business competitor of the applicant and he took over the applicant’s [businesses] by “putting false cases” against the applicant.
·[Mr A] collaborates with friends of [Mr B] started to search for the applicant to “hunt him down” since 2008 after he departed to study in Australia. The applicant’s family has been threatened and police did not provide protection.
·In 2011, for medical reasons, the applicant returned India twice and he was attacked in June 2011. The applicant ran away from the attack and hide in his family friends place for about three weeks before returning to Australia.
·The applicant did not return to India since 2011, despite his mother was involved in two car accidents and had three surgeries.
·He faces serious threat in India and believe that he will be persecuted.
·The risk of significant harm is real and likely to continue if the applicant returns to India.
·There is nowhere safe for the applicant to live in India or Nepal.
On the same day the applicant provided the following statement:
I am persecuted by the SOI (Student Organisation of India) group and [Mr A] who are in association with SGPC(Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, religious group in Punjab), SAD{Shiromani Akali Dal, political party in Punjab) and BJP.
In the school time of mine in 2003, I was involved in a group fight in college. One guy named [Mr B] from the other group was injured from that fight and later passed away. His friend, [and] some more has been seeking revenge since then. That group later grew and became SOI members and get associated with SGPC and SAD.
In 2004 and 2007, two of my friends, [Mr C] and [Mr D] were killed by [Mr B]'s friends and other members of Shiromani Aka Ii Dal, because they were involved in the fight in 2003. Since my father passed away, I used to run my father's business [in] my home town. My father was in the business of [deleted].
[Mr A] were trying to take both [businesses]. He sent his crew to attack my staff and damage the property. Also, he put two fake cases against me in 2004. Someone put stolen [goods] in my [business] and accused that I was guilty. I had to spend lots of money to resolve this matter and I had to quit these businesses.
In about 2008, [Mr B]'s friends went to [Mr A] as he is a big member of SAD and they decided to hunt me down since they found out that I was involved in the fight in 2003.
They came to threaten my family in Nov 2008, some members of [Mr A]'s group visited my father's shop and looked for me, (while I am in Australia). After a few days they send message to my home and says they want to meet me. My mom found out who they are and tried to contact with the police. Police said "leave them because they are youngsters, and they may be dangerous for you". The police did not make a report for this.
As my mom told them that I was not around, I thought they stopped looking for me.
In 2011, I went back to see my daughter and mom in February. In that time, I fell sick and got hospitalised because of [a medical condition]. They did not know I was there and they did not notice. I was referred to a surgent to check my [medical condition] and I returned to Australia in April.
After I returned to Australia, I was sick again for the same issue and hospitalised in Brisbane for 4 days. In 2011 June when I went back again to see the doctor for further treatment. I and my cousin were in [a location] around evening time doing shopping. About 5-6 [Mr B]'s friends recognised me and they tried to catch me. Knowing that I could be killed, I ran away with my cousin and hid in my uncle's place. Later I went to U.P. to hide in the I had to hide in U.P. in family friend's place and stayed low. I found out that they were actively looking for me. They went to my mother's place again and the group put another fighting case against me with the police.
To avoid contact with them, I was hiding for about 3 weeks and I did not step out of my shelter. I extended my fight several times before I am able to return Australia.
I never went back to India after 2011, even my mother was hit by car two times with serious injury. She has done surgery three times and still cannot have food on her own. I am really worried and I wish I could accompany her as I am the only son. However, I was so afraid to go back as they may find me anywhere and kill me.
They group (SOI, SGPC and SAD) grew in power through the years and it is more dangerous to go back now.
As the [Mr B]'s friends and [Mr A] has the connection with SGPC and BJP, they can easily find me as long as I am back, the police will not provide protection because they are related and corrupted as well.
I am not able to safely stay in Nepal as they can go to Nepal to find me and it is even easier to kill me there.
Although I am afraid to go back, I was told by my agent at that time that applying refugee/protection visa will have significant impacts and I will face a lot of limitations in future. I was trying to stay in Australia after 2011 through skilled visas but failed. Provided I do not have other options, I applied protection visa in Jan 2016 as I am afraid to go back to India.
Regarding the case officer's comment:
·     In the interview in 2016, there was several miscommunication as there was no interpreter.
·     I do not have any political backgrounds. I have no connection with the Congress party. I do not have friends who are related to Congress party any more.
·     I cannot relocate to other cities as [Mr A]'s group have power and connections across the country.
·     I cannot relocate to Nepal because they can also find my there it is even easier to kill me there.
·     My main reason is to apply is because of the fear of persecution of the [Mr A]'s group and I only mentioned my health condition as a secondary consideration since the case officer asked.
On the evening before the Tribunal hearing, the applicant provided to the Tribunal the following letters of support:
·A translated letter of support, not dated, from [the applicant’s mother] stating that the applicant has been living in Australia under a student visa since 21 August 2008. The letter further states that the applicant attended [a] College in Patiala Punjab in 2003. During that time there was violence from two opposing groups where one person was killed, and no information was available surrounding the circumstances of that death. The applicant’s mother states that sometime after this violence her son became sick and was admitted into hospital; further violence between the same groups erupted in 2007, and ‘they put my son’s name’ (assumedly meaning that some party placed the applicant at the scene of the violence); however, the letter states that the applicant was not involved because he was sick and could not venture out. The letter states that the writer’s husband died in 1999, and she was left to look after her children alone, and that she wanted her son to complete the IELTS test and travel to Australia, away from the violence, with the opportunity to study. The letter states that the applicant first travelled to Australia [in] February 2011, and everything went smoothly, until the applicant got sick again and went to hospital; upon returning from hospital the same group began appearing at the applicant’s house and threatened the applicant. The applicant’s mother states that she sent the applicant to live with her relatives, however, the same group frequently came to her house, threatening ‘us’. The applicant’s mother states that she went to the police to make a report, and they warned her that the group is very dangerous. The letter concludes that the violence against the applicant scared the applicant’s mother, and the applicant’s health was deteriorating, and states that the police tried to save her son but weren’t able to.
·A translated letter of support, not dated, from [the applicant’s sister]. The letter states that following their father’s death in 1999, the applicant moved to Australia as a student, [in] August 2008. The letter states that the applicant was studying at [a] College in 2003, and a fight broke out between two rival groups where one person was killed, however, the family has no information about that death. The letter states that after this violence, the applicant’s brother became sick, and violence broke out again in 2007 resulting in the death of a friend of the applicant. The letter states that the applicant was named via a false report ‘on this fight’ (presumably meaning that the applicant was placed at the scene of the violence); however, the applicant had already left this group. The letter states that when the applicant became sick in 2011 ‘the guys attach (sic) him again’, so the applicant’s family hid him at a relative’s house, before he returned to Australia. The applicant’s sister states that at this stage, her marriage was ‘fixed’, so in an attempt to save the applicant’s life they ‘married him’, and sent him to Australia, so no one could harm the applicant and he could live without fear. The letter concludes that if the applicant visits India or Nepal, they can attack or harm him, so the writer requests permission for the applicant to stay in Australia and save his life.

Also provided at this time was [a] report dated [April] 2021 indicating that the cousin of a named individual was taken by police and beaten. This individual is in critical condition in hospital. In the hearing, the applicant indicated that the cousin of this individual is a person involved in [protests].
Documents were also provided to the Tribunal following the hearing. The provision of these documents had not been foreshadowed by the applicant in hearing.
Provided is a statement from [name deleted]. This statement indicates that the writer and the applicant in June 2011 were attacked in a [location]. The writer and the applicant managed to escape. The writer had injuries for which he needed the treatment of the doctor. It was decided to go to the police station to file a complaint but as a result of family concern they did not do this as a complaint may cause the individuals to harm their families. The writer indicates that even today he is scared of mistreatment from the attackers.
he applicant provides documents in relation to judicial proceedings between the state of Punjab and a number of named defendants. The applicant is not named as a defendant. Dates on documents indicate the proceedings as from 2007.
Independent information
DFAT Country Information Report – India, 10 December 2020 provides:
POLITICAL OPINION (ACTUAL OR IMPUTED)
India’s constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly, and the right to form associations (Articles 19-22). The Government of India can impose reasonable restrictions to these freedoms in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, national security and public order, and to maintain decency and morality. India has laws on sedition and criminal defamation, and laws regulating
the use of the internet. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), these laws curb Indians’ constitutional freedoms.
Democratic elections for the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament, have been held since 1951.The only exception to this was when the Indian Congress Party’s then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi postponed elections during a period of emergency rule from 1975 to 1977. Notwithstanding the scale and complexity of India’s political landscape, and noting some exceptions, elections in India tend to be peaceful, broadly free and fair, reflect the will of the electorate, and result in regular transfers of power at central and state levels. Activists have occasionally called for communities in conflict-affected areas to boycott electoral processes, and low-level violence has sometimes occurred.
India has a diverse political landscape, which represents different ethnic, religious, secular and political interests. There are no constitutional, legal or other institutional restrictions preventing minorities from participating in politics. Political parties often court ethnic, religious and caste-based minorities for their ability to deliver ‘vote banks’.
Observers assess the government has sought to align Indian nationalism with Hindu nationalism. They claim the BJP has benefited politically from some Hindu organisations’ use of violence to polarise the electorate along religious lines. The 2019 USCIRF report – which the Indian Government rejects – claims certain BJP members have affiliations with extremist Hindu groups and have used inflammatory language about religious minorities publicly (see Recent History and Hindu nationalist organisations). This has led to concerns minority rights and religious freedoms are being threatened, and the link between democracy and secularism is being weakened.
Opposition Parties and Critics of the Government
India has hundreds of political parties registered with the election commission, with a small group registered as national parties. The BJP and its rival the Indian National Congress (Congress) party are the largest among them. Since independence, the Congress party has dominated the national movement for ending British rule and has formed most of India’s governments. The party, which has lost successive general elections to BJP since 2014, is currently led by Sonia Gandhi. Other national parties include:
- Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) established in 1984 to represent the lower castes such as SCs (also known as Dalits), STs, OBCs and the religious minorities. BSP is strongest in Uttar Pradesh, where it has previously formed government.
- Communist Party of India (CPI) a socialist party formed in 1925. It enjoys varying degrees of support in West Bengal, Kerala, Tripura, Manipur and Tamil Nadu.
- Communist Party of India (Marxist) emerged out of a division in the CPI in 1964 over ideological issues. Based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism, it has a strong presence in the states of West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala.
- Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), which formed in 1999 after some of the top Congress Party members, broke away in protest at Sonia Gandhi’s leadership. NCP is primarily based in Maharashtra.
- All India Trinamool Congress, founded in January 1998, is a breakaway faction of the Indian National Congress. It is strongest in West Bengal, where it is in government.
- National People’s Party, founded in 2013 and accorded national party status in June 2019. It is the first political party from northeastern India to attain this status.
Besides the national parties, numerous regional movements play an important role in each state. The influence of regional parties has reportedly been growing steadily, often at the expense of the Congress.
The constitution protects the rights to freedom of speech, and to form associations and unions. This right is subject to ‘reasonable’ restrictions in the interests of public order, decency or morality. Public demonstrations require advance notice and permission of authorities and frequently occur. Intelligence agencies regularly monitor the activities of civil society actors and individuals engaged in particular areas of sensitivity. According to some commentators, the right to freedom of speech is limited in practice, with government control tightening.
In January 2020, researcher and student Sharjeel Iman, was arrested and charged with sedition, following a protest speech in which he called for a road blockade to cut off the state of Assam from the rest of country. This followed protests over the government’s December 2019 introduction of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. Following Iman’s speech, some BJP leaders reportedly labelled him a ‘secessionist’. Critics are concerned the government is using the colonial-era sedition law, under which Iman was arrested, to silence dissenters, claiming their acts are a threat to national security.
Media reports citing official data claim 332 people were arrested under the sedition law between 2016 and 2018, with seven convicted (suggesting police have struggled to gather evidence against the accused). Researchers claim the use of the sedition law has increased under the current government. DFAT is unable to verify these claims.
In 2019, Indian police filed a sedition case (later dropped) against 49 people who had expressed concern in an open letter to Prime Minister Modi over hate crimes targeting minority communities. Other recent high profile cases include sedition charges against political activist Shehla Rashid for tweets alleging the Indian army’s use of torture in Kashmir; and sedition charges (later dropped) against a teacher and a parent for involvement in a school play voicing opposition to the citizenship law.
There are few publicly available statistics on election incidents. Reports of violence around polling stations do occur during electoral periods. For example, in the 2019 general election campaign, clashes between party supporters, protests and other violent incidents were reported in 11 (of then-29) states. Seven deaths were recorded of voters, party workers and elections officials, including by security forces, with multiple others injured. The Electoral Commission of India (ECI) ordered repolling in around 270 (of 1 million) polling stations due to allegations the booths had been ‘captured’ and voters intimidated by supporters of one or another party. The ECI also banned campaigning in West Bengal a day early after a major clash between the supporters of the BJP and the governing All India Trinamool Congress.
DFAT assesses leaders and members of opposition parties do not face official or societal discrimination on a day-to-day basis. The risk of political violence between rival supporters increases during parliamentary and state elections, especially in states where results are tightly contested. However, in general, given the scale of the Indian election process, elections are conducted peacefully. DFAT assesses people who publicly express views critical of the government face a moderate risk of official discrimination. This may include arrest, harassment and prosecution.
Hearing, credibility, findings, and assessment
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out: MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 at 288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her: Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 at 45. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437.
In considering overall the credibility of the applicant the Tribunal is cognisant of the words of Beaumont J in Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 in which he stated that ‘in the proof of refugeehood, a liberal attitude on the part of the decision-maker is called for… [but this should not lead to]… an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by supplicants’. The Tribunal notes also the remarks of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 191 where it was said that ‘the fact that an applicant for refugee status may yield to temptation to embroider an account of his or her history is hardly surprising’. The Tribunal has sought to adopt the liberal approach outlined in these cases.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of India and accordingly his claims will be assessed against India.
The Tribunal notes the following evidence of relevance given by the applicant in hearing.
After the break in the hearing, giving the applicant the opportunity to discuss the issue with his migration agent, the applicant indicated that he was not making claims as to harm in India for protection purposes as a result of his medical condition. As a result, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for a refugee criterion reason, or that he faces a real risk of significant harm as defined for the purpose of the complementary protection criteria as a result of his medical conditions or treatment in India for his medical conditions.
In the hearing, the applicant gave relatively detailed and convincing evidence of being involved, when he was at college in 2003, in a fight between him and a group of friends and an opposing group which resulted in a person called [Mr B] from the opposing group being killed. The Tribunal accepts that this incident occurred.
The applicant indicated that at the time of the death there was a criminal case initiated which included the applicant as a culprit. In the hearing, the applicant indicated that five days after the 2003 incident, the applicant’s name was removed as a culprit which was as a result of the payment of money to the police. This is accepted by the Tribunal. The applicant did not in the hearing indicate any further prosecution by police of charges or allegations against the applicant for involvement in this incident.
The applicant gave convincing evidence of a further incident in 2007 when individuals from the two groups that had been involved in the altercation in 2003 had a fight, resulting in the death of one of the applicant’s friends. Even though the applicant indicates that he was not involved in this fight, a police case was lodged against him in relation to his claimed participation in the fight. The applicant indicated that his name as having been involved was withdrawn by police, including again as a result of the payment of money. The withdrawal of charges occurred not long after the incident in 2007. The Tribunal accepts that this occurred.
The existence of 2007 court proceedings would seem to be confirmed by court documents provided by the applicant following the hearing.
In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that his father died in 2009, which the Tribunal accepts. The applicant’s father had run [businesses]. The applicant gave evidence that he had some ongoing involvement in the running of the business after the death of his father. The applicant was involved for approximately two hours per day in terms of collecting monies for the business. The applicant gave evidence in the hearing of [various jobs]. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was employed in these various respects.
The applicant gave evidence in the hearing that the businesses of his father ceased in 2004 as a result of intimidation and pressure from [Mr A] and his associates. The applicant indicated in the hearing that [Mr A] engaged in intimidation similar to that of the mafia. The applicant indicated that the intimidation of the businesses involved [Mr A]’s associates beating up employees of the business. This and other intimidation eventually forced the business to close. The Tribunal accepts this to be the case.
The above factual claims are matters which the Tribunal is satisfied of.
However, the Tribunal has a number of credibility concerns as to an ongoing desire from 2008 by [Mr A] and friends of [Mr B] who were politically connected to seek and harm the applicant as revenge for his involvement in the death of [Mr B]. The applicant indicated in the hearing the this was the basis on which he was now claiming harm in India for the purpose of meeting the protection criteria. The Tribunal has credibility concerns with claims that the applicant’s mother was threatened by [Mr A] and/or his associates in 2008 resulting in her making a complaint to police. The Tribunal has credibility concerns with the applicant’s recent claims to have been attacked as claimed on his second visit to India in 2011. The Tribunal has credibility concerns with the applicant’s claims in the hearing that he immediately fled his home city after this attack, not returning until departing Delhi by plane from India for Australia.
The Tribunal’s various credibility concerns follow.
Firstly, the applicant’s original written statement made as part of his protection visa application makes no claims that the core reason that the applicant faces harm is from individuals, particularly [Mr A], who are politically connected, who want revenge for the applicant’s involvement in the death of [Mr B] in a fight in 2003.
Instead, the original written claims make reference to the risk to the applicant being as a result of a belief of his political involvement because of the political involvement of his friends.
In response, the applicant indicated that his failure to include in this written statement this core claim as the reason for harm from these claimed individuals is the fact that there might have been language issues, or that he was nervous.
The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that it was not likely to consider that there would be nervousness by the applicant in producing a written statement which he would have the opportunity to do alone and with reflection.
The Tribunal also has concerns that the applicant would not have sought help to overcome language barriers to ensure that core claims for protection were reflected in the important written statement that he was to provide to the Department.
The failure by the applicant to include in this initial written statement the fact that he is at risk of harm based on a desire for revenge in relation to the death of [Mr B] in 2003 is undermining to a degree as to the truth of the applicant’s claims to this effect.
Secondly, the applicant has not provided consistent evidence in terms of the level of his fear in returning to India after he first came to Australia in 2008. In the interview with the delegate, the applicant was asked when he first became fearful of returning to India and the applicant responded ‘from the first day in 2008’. In contrast, in the Tribunal hearing the applicant indicated that his main desire in coming to Australia in 2008 was to study and that the dispute between the two groups involved in the death of [Mr B] had died down at this point in time, and the fear that he had for his safety was limited.
In response, the applicant indicated that this inconsistency could be explained by a language barrier. The Tribunal notes that the applicant in the interview with the delegate communicated in English. Although there was an interpreter in the Tribunal hearing, at various points the applicant also communicated in English.
The Tribunal notes that his evidence in English, whilst not perfect, was reasonably competent suggesting a reasonable comprehension in English by the applicant.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the relatively straightforward question asked by the applicant as to when he became fearful in returning to India, nor the applicant’s reasonably concise response, demonstrates a lack of comprehension or confusion on the part of the applicant.
Credibility concerns are created for the Tribunal as a result in quite differing evidence as to the level of the applicant’s claimed fear in India when he first arrived in Australia in 2008.
Thirdly, the recent written statement provided to the Tribunal by the applicant’s mother, whilst referring to her complaining to police after her son was attacked in 2011, makes no reference corroborating the applicant’s claims that she was approached in an intimidating way in 2008 by these individuals also resulting in her complaining to the police.
In his first response at hearing, the applicant maintained that his mother had made a claim in her statement to this effect but, upon checking, agreed that she had not, and must have forgotten.
The Tribunal struggles to accept that if the applicant’s mother had previously been the target of intimidating conduct of this group who had a view to harm her son and had made a complaint to police in 2008 that this would not have been a relevant and important matter to have included in her statement to the Tribunal.
The failure by the applicant’s mother’s statement to have made reference to the claimed approaches and a report to police in 2008 is undermining of the truth of these incidences.
Fourthly, the applicant’s original written statement to the Department does not provide detail of an event during his trip to India in June and July 2011 of being attacked, physically assaulted, and immediately fleeing his city for a location in Uttar Pradesh to escape harm from the individuals who were targeting him.
This is now the key claimed event based on which the applicant fears harm on return to India, which he confirmed and reiterated in the hearing. Yet, the specifics of this incident are not detailed in the applicant’s original written statement to the Department. All that statement indicates is the applicant’s claim that he was continually being looked for and attacked.

In the hearing, the applicant provided detail of this claimed attack in terms of three to four individuals attacking him and his cousin in a [location] with baseball bats and rods. The applicant indicated that his cousin suffered a serious head injury. The applicant indicates that while he was physically harmed the impact was limited. The applicant indicated that he and his cousin fled from the scene separately on foot.
Given the now claimed impact and significance of the attack in June 2011 as being the key basis on which the applicant believes he would be targeted, the Tribunal has concerns that this specific incident is not referred to in any detail at all in his original written statement, nor his immediate need to flee from his city for his safety, without ever returning to his mother’s home, where all of his belongings were, as the applicant gave evidence of in the hearing.
The Tribunal also notes that neither in the interview with the delegate does the applicant provide details of this attack in June 2011 which is now claimed as the key basis as to the ongoing risk of harm.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant in the hearing referred to nervousness and language difficulties. Whilst the Tribunal accepts understandable nervousness and some language barriers, the Tribunal is not persuaded that this reasonably explains why the original written statement or oral evidence given before the delegate provides any detail of the claimed attack in 2011 which is now indicated as the key catalyst for the applicant’s claim of risk of harm.
The failure by the applicant to have provided details of the attack in India causing him to need to flee his city is undermining that this event and its aftermath occurred.
Fifthly, there is inconsistent evidence as to the frequency of visits to the applicant and his mother by the individuals seeking to harm the applicant after the claimed attack on the applicant in 2011. In the hearing, the applicant indicated that there were one or two subsequent visits to his mother. In contrast, the mother’s statement indicates that the group began ‘frequently’ coming to her house and threatening her.
The Tribunal considers that there is an appreciable difference between one to two visits and frequent visits. This is not an issue which is given significant adverse weight but it is considered cumulatively together with more significant concerns.
Sixthly, the delay of the applicant from the claimed events in 2011 in terms of creating a risk of harm to the applicant on return to India, but the applicant not making the application for the protection visa until 2016 is undermining as to the truth and legitimacy of the claims of harm in India.
As indicated, in the hearing the applicant emphasised that the attack in 2011 was the key basis on which he has an ongoing fear of harm on return to India.
In the hearing, the applicant indicated that his original student visa was cancelled in November 2011. The Tribunal noted that records indicate that the applicant applied for another student visa in May 2013 which was refused in December 2013. The applicant sought review by the Tribunal which affirmed the original decision in October 2014. The applicant indicated that he thereafter sought Ministerial intervention, unsuccessfully.
The Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing that his delay in applying for the protection visa from the claimed events of 2011, including in the context of the subsequent student visa applied for and the review, appeal and Ministerial intervention processes create concerns about the applicant having the claimed level of fear in India since (at least) 2011. The Tribunal notes that the protection visa application in the context of the application and processes engaged in by the applicant suggest that the application for the protection visa could be a last-minute attempt to stay in Australia rather than demonstrating a genuine fear and harm in India.
In response, the applicant maintained that he was advised by migration agents not to apply for a protection visa, as this would spoil things, but to make a further application for a student visa.
As put to the applicant and the hearing, the Tribunal has concerns that the applicant would engage in the lengthy processes of review, appeal and Ministerial intervention in preference to at an earlier point in time making an application for a protection visa if there was a genuine concern for serious or significant harm on return to India. The applicant repeated that every agent told him that a protection visa application would ruin things.
The Tribunal has considerable doubts that such advice would have been issued to the applicant to this effect. A student visa is not a permanent visa and would result in the applicant having to return to India at some point in time. The Tribunal is inclined to think that if the applicant had the level of fear in India claimed from at least 2011 he would have made a much earlier application for a protection visa than 2016.
The delay in the application for the protection visa is undermining of the truth of the applicant’s claims.
Seventhly, 10 years have passed since the claimed attack of 2011, with limited ongoing approaches to the applicant’s mother, which is undermining of claims that the applicant faces harm many years later, including in the context of no ongoing approaches over recent years by these individuals to the applicant’s mother.
In the hearing, the applicant indicated that there were one to two visits to his mother by the individuals who were seeking to harm him in the attack in 2011, but that there have not been subsequent visits to his mother by these individuals over the following 10 years.
In response, the applicant referred to difficulties sleeping and ongoing fear in returning to India. The applicant did not directly address the risk of harm 10 years after one claimed attack in 2011.
The Tribunal has credibility concerns that there would be a concerted ongoing desire by individuals to harm the applicant in India as a result of a death that occurred 18 years ago, with the last claimed incidents of threat and harm being made 10 years ago.
This is not determinative in the Tribunal’s findings but is considered cumulatively together with more direct and substantive matters.
Before considering these various credibility issues, the Tribunal notes that in the hearing the applicant indicates that the risk to him from the individuals who wish to harm him has increased because the political parties they are associated with, including the BJP, are now in power in India.
The applicant’s migration agent provided oral submissions at the end of the Tribunal hearing. These include that, given that the applicant has a wife and two children in India, thus close connections, the fact that he has not returned to them in India serves to demonstrate the fear of harm on return that he has. It was maintained that the applicant has been truthful and that his fear is real.
The Tribunal considers these credibility concerns cumulatively. As indicated, the Tribunal is satisfied as to key factual matters having been claimed by the applicant in 2007 and earlier. This includes that the applicant was involved in a fight in 2003 that led to the death of an individual and subsequent fights and harm suffered between the two groups involved. The Tribunal is satisfied that there were criminal cases launched against the applicant in 2003 and 2007 at which the applicant managed to resolve reasonably quickly by having charges dropped by police.
The Tribunal is satisfied that [Mr A] is a businessman who engages in intimidating tactics who caused the business of the applicant’s late father to shut down in 2004.
However, the Tribunal is not satisfied as to the credibility of key substantive claims as to what has happened since 2008. The cumulative impact of the various credibility concerns, apart from the seventh issue, cause the Tribunal to not be satisfied that the applicant has been truthful in relation to these claims.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that [Mr A] and friends of [Mr B] and others, including on the basis of their political connections, have had any concerted desire since 2008 to track and harm the applicant in revenge for the applicant’s involvement in the death of [Mr B] in 2003. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s family were threatened by these individuals in 2008 after the applicant came to Australia, resulting in the applicant’s mother reporting this matter to the police. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was attacked on his return trip to India in June 2011 by individuals seeking to harm him in the circumstances claimed. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant fled his home area in India for Uttar Pradesh to escape the risk of harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that after the attack in 2011 the applicant’s mother was approached by these individuals which she reported to the police.
In relation to the claimed 2011 attack, the Tribunal has taken into account the supporting statement provided following the hearing from the applicant’s cousin corroborating that this event occurred. This statement is probative to some extent but could easily have been concocted. The existence of the statement does not overcome the relevant credibility concerns identified.
On the basis of these credibility concerns together with the seventh credibility concern, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any ongoing desire by [Mr A] or the other associated individuals who have an ongoing desire to track down and harm the applicant on return to India many years after the claimed events in question. This includes lack of satisfaction that the applicant is being targeted from 2008 as a result of his involvement in the death of [Mr B] in 2003 and/or on the basis of the political connections of these individuals, notwithstanding that the political parties with which they are associated may be in power in India.
The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant’s late father’s businesses, where the applicant worked part-time, were closed down in 2004 as a result of intimidating actions at the behest of [Mr A]. The Tribunal has not accepted that this [Mr A] has been instrumental in seeking revenge against the applicant from 2008 for the events of 2003. The applicant has not otherwise claimed harm from [Mr A] as a result of his underworld activities. The Tribunal is not satisfied that [Mr A] has targeted the applicant either for reasons of the events of 2003 or otherwise from 2008. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm as a result of adverse conduct by [Mr A] for other reasons.
These findings are particularly reinforced by the failure by the applicant to make any mention of issues involving [Mr A] until two days before the Tribunal hearing and not to have mentioned these in his original written statement or an interview with the delegate.
The Tribunal has taken into account the media report provided by the applicant concerning mistreatment by police of an individual in the applicant’s home area. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this report establishes the requisite risk to the applicant. The applicant is not making claims of mistreatment by police.
Given these findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of the applicant suffering serious or significant harm for any of the reasons claimed.
In summary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason set out in s.5J(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to India, there is a real risk of him suffering significant harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
David McCulloch
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2021] AATA 2011

23 April 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction